LAXMAN K PATIL Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition relates to the exercise of powers by the Disciplinary Authority under Clause (b) of the Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner takes exception to the Order of dismissal passed against him, after dispensing with a departmental enquiry.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in the State on 23rd January, 1971. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable within a period of three years on 1st August,1974. The petitioner had successfully completed certain Technical Tests held by the Board of Examination of Arms and Ammunition in the year 1964, while serving in the Defence Force, the petitioner was posted in the Goa Police Armoury for carrying out inspection and repairs to arms. During the period 1981-1982 additional charge was given to the petitioner to discharge his duty in the Armoury Workshop. However, according to the petitioner he was never given charge of the Civil Arms and Magazine rifles as these were contained in a different section of the Armoury. The petitioner has stated in the petition that from time-to-time certificates were issued to him by the respondent no. 1 acknowledging his good work in the field of maintenance and cleansing of small arms at various police stations, including the Police Headquarters at Panaji. Under the provisions of the Bombay Police Manual Vol. II, which are also applicable to the Goa Police Force, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Police Inspector of Headquarters conduct regular inspections at the Armoury. From 1970 onwards, the Defence Officer of the rankof Captain was also deputed by the Central Government for carrying out yearly audit at the Armoury. This audit was then carried out by the Inspector General of Police from the year 1987 onwards. Sometime in 1990, charges were levelled against the Goa Police for supplying ammunition to criminals in Karnataka State. An enquiry was held by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore and the records of ammunition which were in the custody of the petitioner were checked and verified by the C. B. I. and the Committee appointed by the respondents. The Committee verified the registers of ammunition in co-relation with the ammunition issued and the dead stock register from 26th April, 1987 to 12th January, 1990 and certified that the records maintained by the petitioner were correct.

(3.) IT appears that the Inspector of Police (Investigation Cell, Hyderabad), visited Goa on 12th June, 1992, on the basis of a complaint that mauzar rifles and arms were supplied from Goa Police Armoury to Peoples' War Group of Andhra Pradesh. Immediately the next day, i. e. on 13th June, 1992, the petitioner was arrested by the Hyderabad Police andtaken to the State of Andhra Pradesh. He was detained in Police custody and it was only on a petition for habeas corpus being filed in this Court that it was disclosed that the petitioner was charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act ("tada Act" for short) and was detained at Hyderabad. On 13th June, 1992, when the petitioner was arrested, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect. The reason for his suspension was that he was arrested by the Andhra Pradesh intelligence branch for his alleged involvement in illegal arms transactions. The petitioner was then released on bail by the designated court under TADA Act on 2nd July, 1996. The trial was completed and on 9th April, 1999, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The order of acquittal was confirmed by the Apex Court on 21st November, 2000.